Hi all, Am Dienstag, den 03.11.2020, 18:11 +0100 schrieb Sven Geuer: > Hi Mike, > > Am Dienstag, den 03.11.2020, 09:39 +0000 schrieb Mike Gabriel: > > Hi Sven, > > > > On Mo 02 Nov 2020 18:59:13 CET, Sven Geuer wrote: > > > > > Hi Mike and Ola, > > > > > > Am Sonntag, den 01.11.2020, 09:45 +0100 schrieb Ola Lundqvist: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Transitional is the safest approach but I can live with > > > > removing > > > > it. > > > > > > > > / Ola > > > > > > > > Den fre 30 okt. 2020 21:19Mike Gabriel < > > > > mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de> > > > > skrev: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Fr 30 Okt 2020 21:03:45 CET, Sven Geuer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Ola, Mike and Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the upstream source code and the tightvnc-java > > > > > > changelog > > > > > > vnc-java [1] is a predecessor of tightvnc-java [2]. The > > > > > > only > > > > > > major > > > > > > difference seems to be that vnc-java is the companion > > > > > > package > > > > > > of > > > > > > another server package, vncserver, instead of > > > > > > tighvncserver. > > > > > > vncserver > > > > > > in turn disappeared from Debian during 2010, if my findings > > > > > > are > > > > > > correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > The functionalities of vnc-java and tightvnc-java are the > > > > > > same, > > > > > > only > > > > > > the calls differ: > > > > > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/jvncviewer versus > > > > > /usr/bin/jtightvncviewer > > > > > > /usr/share/java/vncviewer.jar versus > > > > > /usr/share/java/tightvncviewer.jar > > > > > > /usr/share/vnc-java/vncviewer.jar versus > > > > > /usr/share/tightvnc-java/VncViewer.jar > > > > > > CODE=vncviewer.class > > > > > > ARCHIVE=vncviewer.jar versus CODE=tightvncviewer.VncViewer > > > > > > ARCHIVE=VncViewer.jar > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to convert vnc-java into a transitional > > > > > > package, to > > > > > > bring the still existing users (see popcon [3]) over to > > > > > > tightvnc- > > > > > > java? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, as upstream is not available any more, ignore the > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > code and > > > > > > make it using tightvnc-java as its backend to do the real > > > > > > job? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or even make it a native Debian package using tightvnc-java > > > > > > as > > > > > > its > > > > > > backend to do the real job? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, ... > > > > > > > > > > How about simply removing vnc-java from Debian? > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't trust popcon that much here. Do you have any other > > > > > evidence > > > > > that the package is really used by people (or by dependent > > > > > packages). > > > > > > > > > > Old and unmaintained code should be removed from Debian. > > > > > > > > > > One could think about shipping a wrapper script named > > > > > jvncviewer > > > > > that > > > > > mimicks the command link syntax of the executable in vnc-java > > > > > but > > > > > wraps around jtightvncviewer. > > > > > > > > > > Except from that... Dump it, I'd say. (But that is just one > > > > > single > > > > > opinion, maybe others have other thoughts on this). > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > @Mike: The popcon numbers is the only evidence I could find of > > > vnc- > > > java > > > being in use. No other package refers to vnc-java. > > > > > > I am fine with removing the package too. Not sure whether this > > > happens > > > automatically at some point in time. > > > > > > Sven > > > > As Ola said, there is a specific procedure for the removal of > > packages > > from testing/unstable (removal request filed as a bug against the > > ftp.debian.org virtual package). > > > > Will you handle this? Or shall I? > > I'll handle this. Another chance to learn about the Debian Project. Done. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=973709. > > Sven > > > > Mike Sven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part